ext4 has better large file support in performance and reliability I
believe. Don't quote me on that, but I've read that somewhere(?)
So if the ext4 development is stable that might be a good option if
going the ext route.
Sounds like an awesome server.
On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 15:44, Ted Deppner<ted@psyber.com> wrote:
> Cheap insurance against the need to change things. The only overhead
> expense that would matter (because CPU and disk won't) would be your
> time, differing between learning and using LVM versus having to change
> something the hard way later on.
>
> On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 3:01 PM, Alex Mandel<tech_dev@wildintellect.com> wrote:
>> I think I'm missing why LVM would be good in this situation, it seems
>> like extra overhead. RAID 6 in this case offers hot swapping of up to 2
>> failing drives at the same time, so I don't plan to do any mirroring
>> beyond what the RAID config offers. As for the need to change
>> partitions, aside from the OS which might have it's own drives, the rest
>> of the drives are all 1 partition of 8 TB.
> _______________________________________________
> vox-tech mailing list
> vox-tech@lists.lugod.org
> http://lists.lugod.org/mailman/listinfo/vox-tech
>
--
Scott
_______________________________________________
vox-tech mailing list
vox-tech@lists.lugod.org
http://lists.lugod.org/mailman/listinfo/vox-tech